Well, here is another salvo in the preemptive war the Dems have launched against Petraeus and surge report.

Round One was the notion that "the White House actually wrote the report, so it's invalid." Now we're on to this:

Quote:

Democrats on Tuesday accused President George W. Bush of painting a "rosy picture" of Iraq and of confusing Americans by linking the war there to the September 11 attacks in 2001.

Only bad news will be accepted here. This is Congress!

Quote:

"It's been (Bush's) misguided policy and his mismanaged war that have actually fueled extremism and extremists in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond," Biden said.

Uh...that doesn't change the good news coming out of Iraq. In other words, Biden is wrong.

Quote:

Democrats are gearing up for a new bid to thwart the president's war strategy, and awaiting testimony from the US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and top war commander General David Petraeus on the surge strategy.

That's actually a pretty amazing statement from a news site. It's just thrown out there so cooly. Read it again and consider...shouldn't the Democrats be focusing on what's in the report as opposed to "gearing up to thwart" the President? Hmmm.

This party is utterly invested in failure in Iraq, even when it's apparent that the surge is producing some very positive results. The Dems knew this would be a problem if it occurred, and now they are responding with the political strategy de jour. Except this time not many people are going to buy it. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed, and the results of the surge are obvious. The Dems effort will fail.

I hate to say "I told you so," but....I told you so. The Dems put themselves in a very bad and risky political position by fighting the surge so hard without actually stopping the war. Now, they look not only wrong, but they've pissed off their left wing base by not end the war. Nice job.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Word from the troops is that the surge is having a positive effect. Of course that doesn't really mean that its going to be a lasting positive effect since everyone pretty much knows we're leaving...Bush right on that score.

The question for the US is: do we have the moral fiber not to leave a mess we created.

If the answer is ultimately no anyway then we might as well pull out as soon as practicable and suck up the consequences.

I believe that the answer is no, we don't have the moral fiber to stick it out. So I support troop withdrawal even though its ultimately the incorrect answer just like the abandonment of Vietnam. The responsibility for this debacle solely rests on the shoulder of my party for selecting and voting in Bush and supporting the neocon agenda when we SHOULD have known better. I blame Rush and all the other right wing idiot talk show weasels out there.

Whine about the dems all you want but we have to take responsibility for our own mess and the rampant self-deception among conservatives. ESPECIALLY among the conservatives with military experience both active and retired in 2003. It was a significant failure among the flag officers advising the country.

I unfortunately have to include Powell in that assessment. He should have agreed with Shinseki's assessment and protested very hard against Rumsfeld, resigning if necessary. There are some things an active officer can't do but Powell should have stepped up to the plate.

Christ. Another Vietnam and no dems to blame it on. Texans. I blame Texans.

Word from the troops is that the surge is having a positive effect. Of course that doesn't really mean that its going to be a lasting positive effect since everyone pretty much knows we're leaving...Bush right on that score.

The question for the US is: do we have the moral fiber not to leave a mess we created.

If the answer is ultimately no anyway then we might as well pull out as soon as practicable and suck up the consequences.

I believe that the answer is no, we don't have the moral fiber to stick it out. So I support troop withdrawal even though its ultimately the incorrect answer just like the abandonment of Vietnam. The responsibility for this debacle solely rests on the shoulder of my party for selecting and voting in Bush and supporting the neocon agenda when we SHOULD have known better. I blame Rush and all the other right wing idiot talk show weasels out there.

Whine about the dems all you want but we have to take responsibility for our own mess and the rampant self-deception among conservatives. ESPECIALLY among the conservatives with military experience both active and retired in 2003. It was a significant failure among the flag officers advising the country.

I unfortunately have to include Powell in that assessment. He should have agreed with Shinseki's assessment and protested very hard against Rumsfeld, resigning if necessary. There are some things an active officer can't do but Powell should have stepped up to the plate.

Christ. Another Vietnam and no dems to blame it on. Texans. I blame Texans.

Vinea

I don't agree. We have to stick this out now. As I said, if the surge showed no positive results, we should leave. And honestly, despite having high hopes, I wasn't so sure it would. But clearly, it has. We should maintain it through Spring and start drawing down then to preserve the 15 months deployment rule and avoid further taxing the Army. By that point there should be more political progress and the Iraqi security forces should be about ready, at least for us to reduce our levels a bit. We can't just bail out now. As badly as things have gone, we have a responsibility. Moreover, bailing out now really would embolden terrorists around the globe and likely lead to many more civilian deaths.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Round One was the notion that "the White House actually wrote the report, so the american people must set the skepticism bar very high for BushCo, Inc.™."

TFTFY!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's actually a pretty amazing statement from a news site. It's just thrown out there so cooly. Read it again and consider...shouldn't the Democrats be focusing on the report and questioning the major players who contributed to various sections of the WH bias with intent POV

That's not even the correct quote from anyone, not even that scumtanker who runs that wingnut website.

Hmmm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

This party is utterly invested in finding the truth in Iraq, even when it's apparent that the surge is producing some very ambiguous results. The Dems knew this would be a problem since the WH will put the best shine on that rotten apple called Iraq, and now they are responding with the correct political strategy. This time many people are going to buy it. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed, and the results of the surge are not obvious. The Dems effort will prevail.

TFTFY!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

The Dems put themselves in a very good political position by demanding the WH written report address 18 benchmarks. And only by asking direct questions to the principle parties submitting their own (never to be released for fifty years) reports relative to their involvement/actons/results in Iraq, will the Dems have any chance of getting to the real situation in Iraq.

I hate to say "I told you so," but....I told you so.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

I have zero confidence in our being in Iraq the multiple years required to achieve victory.

I agree that we SHOULD. But that ain't happening past 2008 IMHO. If so, the sooner we take the hit, the sooner the pain ends.

We may be meeting our recruitment objectives but retention at the O-3 level has been horrendous. I recall 44% attrition in the 2001 class at the O-3 rank. Can't find that reference but that's not sustainable if you want a decent officer corps.

We can't just bail out now. As badly as things have gone, we have a responsibility. Moreover, bailing out now really would embolden terrorists around the globe and likely lead to many more civilian deaths.

You see this is the arrogance that inflames the world against the US, the mindless myopic self-obsession and condescension to 'primitive' people.. Ie, anyone else at all.

The clear subtext of the above ludicrous view is that the US cannot pull out because ONLY THE US can fix it, ONLY THE US the US is capable of doing it, ONLY THE US is worthy of the 'responsibility. No-one else counts.

The solution is quite simple: the US should get out and, more importantly, keep their big schnozz out of anybody else's business period.

Let other more mature, older, more sophisticated and less violently aggressive nations step in.

Not France because they are now firmly on the Bush bomb Iran bandwagon now they have an extreme right-wing loon in charge, but the UK (now Toady is history), Germany, possibly Spain could have a free hand to maintain order.

Dismantle the US embassy - write off the billions it cost, you made more from Iraq anyway - and obliterate the Green Zone. The sensible countries stepping in should start talks and put in some proper investment.

Start off by fixing the electricity and infrastructure and make a real commitment to the people.

Give them something to live for and defend it against extremists - whether they are US, Zionists or Islamist.

Problem solved. There will be less 'friendly fire' deaths too.....

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Word from the troops is that the surge is having a positive effect. Of course that doesn't really mean that its going to be a lasting positive effect since everyone pretty much knows we're leaving...Bush right on that score.

The troops are not allowed to post to certain free blog sites, etc., so I think we are getting a pretty one-sided view, but I could be wrong.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

Don't know whether you're responding to supplying a link or citation or whether about the Frontline report. But that's a given from you. Doesn't surprise me at all. You therefore have lost your credibility again. Why start a thread when all you return with is arrogance and stupidity? Support your claims with information and maybe you'll redeem yourself (unlikely).

Here's a "left" curve for you. I present the triumph of stupidity, how Iran won Iraq without firing a shot while Bush spent $200,000,000,000, wasted 3730 soldiers and countless Iraqis.

Iran is ready to fill a vacuum in Iraq caused by the collapsing power of the United States, its president said on Tuesday.

"The political power of the occupiers (of Iraq) is being destroyed rapidly and very soon we will be witnessing a great power vacuum in the region," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.
Photo

"We, with the help of regional friends and the Iraqi nation, are ready to fill this void." Saudi Arabia was one of the countries Iran was ready to work with, he said....

Iran, which like Iraq is majority Shi'ite Muslim, has often called on fellow Gulf states to reach a regional security pact. But Gulf Arab states, most of which are predominantly Sunnis, are suspicious of Tehran's intentions in Iraq and the region.

With Shi'ite Muslims now in power in Baghdad, ties have strengthened between Iran and Iraq since 2003, when U.S.-led forces toppled Iraq's Sunni president, Saddam Hussein, who had waged an eight-year war against Iran in the 1980s.

The region did not need countries from "thousands of kilometres away" to provide security, Ahmadinejad said, and U.S. and other forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had run out of solutions.

"TRAPPED IN A SWAMP"

"They are trapped in the swamp of their own crimes," Ahmadinejad said. "If you stay in Iraq for another 50 years nothing will improve, it will just worsen."

Why is this September report being discussed as if its contents are mysterious? Everyone is quite capable of following the progress in Iraq with or without David Petraeus. Who made him the ultimate arbiter of truth?

You see this is the arrogance that inflames the world against the US, the mindless myopic self-obsession and condescension to 'primitive' people.. Ie, anyone else at all.

Who said anything about "primitive" people. You're reading stuff in based on your own perverted worldview.

The US created a power vacuum in Iraq. That vacuum is being filled by folks that want to kill people. That's not a good thing.

What would "inflame" the world is the US making a big stinky mess and waltzing away but we're going to do that anyway. This president and the GOP has caused incalculable harm to the US. We're going to paying for Iraq for decades so the sooner we start the better.

Quote:

The clear subtext of the above ludicrous view is that the US cannot pull out because ONLY THE US can fix it, ONLY THE US the US is capable of doing it, ONLY THE US is worthy of the 'responsibility. No-one else counts.

The solution is quite simple: the US should get out and, more importantly, keep their big schnozz out of anybody else's business period.

If someone could fix it without massive deaths we'd be so gone by now. Yes, we should have kept our big schnozz out of Iraq but its too late to do anything about that in 2007.

Quote:

Let other more mature, older, more sophisticated and less violently aggressive nations step in.

Not France because they are now firmly on the Bush bomb Iran bandwagon now they have an extreme right-wing loon in charge, but the UK (now Toady is history), Germany, possibly Spain could have a free hand to maintain order.

LOL...yah right. None of those countries are dumb enough or have the peacekeeping forces large enough to deal with Iraq after the mess we made of it. And those NATO countries with the cojones to deal at all with peacekeeping already have most of their deployable assets rotating in and out of Afghanistan and other parts of the world.

Quote:

Dismantle the US embassy - write off the billions it cost, you made more from Iraq anyway - and obliterate the Green Zone. The sensible countries stepping in should start talks and put in some proper investment.

Start off by fixing the electricity and infrastructure and make a real commitment to the people.

Give them something to live for and defend it against extremists - whether they are US, Zionists or Islamist.

Problem solved. There will be less 'friendly fire' deaths too.....

Idiot. The only thing that's going to happen now is the US pulls out. Iran moves in. Saudi Arabia freaks and if we're REALLY lucky the only thing that occurs is a nasty Shia/Sunni war by proxy and really high gas prices.

We're not likely to be really lucky so its more like Iranian Revolutionary Guards invading Kurdish Iraq en masse because of some PJAK/PKK/PUK incident triggering a real mess with a general Shia Sunni Kurdish Arab Persian Turkish war involving Saudi, Kurdistan, Sunni/Iraq, Shia/Iraq, Iran and Turkey.

Massoud Brazani is playing his own game and stirring the pot between Turkey and Iran. That's really like playing with a lit match when doused with gasoline but a permanent independent Kurdish nation is his goal so he's willing to take the risk hoping the US will be a fireman if he catches fire. He really needs to ask the S. Vietnamese how that turned out for them.

So you gotta be a real moron to think ANY nation wants to touch peacekeeping in Iraq once we leave.

Why is this September report being discussed as if its contents are mysterious? Everyone is quite capable of following the progress in Iraq with or without David Petraeus. Who made him the ultimate arbiter of truth?

As it turns out he's the General with a clue that Bush has latched on to for dear life. The more I read of Petraeus the more impressed I was. The guy has surrounded himself with officers like Nagl and McMaster that have empathy for the Iraqi people and the ability to think outside the box. If the job can be done, he's the guy that can do it.

Too bad he's not going to get the chance (given the job would likely take 10 years). The Dems smell blood and the professional military has fallen down on its job for too long for competent Iraqi policy to survive past September. Frankly, I don't blame the Dems either after years of rampant partisanship driven by Rove.

Had Petraeus been a more senior 3 star in 2003 and had taken over from Franks instead of Sanchez we might have had a chance to win this thing early. I kinda doubt Bush/Rumsfeld would have tapped him in 2001 though and Bremer was a complete loon so likely he'd just have been a casualty like Sanchez...

Why is this September report being discussed as if its contents are mysterious? Everyone is quite capable of following the progress in Iraq with or without David Petraeus. Who made him the ultimate arbiter of truth?

You're not serious are you?

Do YOU have YOUR boots on the ground in Iraq? Are you seeing it through the eyes of the MSM, who at this point seem to be scared to leave the safety of their Bagdad hotel rooms?

I don't trust BushCo, Inc.™ one bit, I don't trust them WRT to the editing and writing of the raw reports as submitted to them from the military in Iraq.

How many US military people do you know in Iraq? How many Iraqi's do you know in Iraq now?

BTW, my boss and friend is a BG in the US Army, if he doesn't get his 2 star in the next year, he's going to Iraq for a year ('09), and will be the chief military engineer running the show over there!

If you think we're getting out of Iraq, anytime soon, dream on!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Maliki's "government" is falling apart, which simply negates the entire rational for the "surge", which, as some of you may recall, was intended to create the stability needed for the "government" to start governing.

I could see this one coming from a mile away-- suddenly there is this huge embarrassing silence regarding the actual status of Iraq as a country, and we are expected to sharply narrow our focus to whatever area has seen some drop in American causalities, or listen to fact free chatter about how we're really sticking it to "al Qaeda in Iraq", or accept without question that some city or another has been "secured" and cleared of "insurgents", while being required not to notice the simple math of increased violence in other areas and the ongoing de facto ethnic cleansing, which is well on it's way to creating an Iraq of single sect city-states.

The only metric that has any bearing on our presence is political stability and the capacity of the Iraqi government to govern. Without that, it doesn't matter if we leave now, next month or in ten years, we'll still be leaving a patch of real estate with a shattered infrastructure occupied by a number of warring tribes with various affiliations to surrounding countries.

The "surge" doesn't actually address any of that, and never really had any hope of doing so. All it does it provide a few sound bites about "winning", according to extremely limited criteria, so the jackals can continue to bray about how wrong the left is, and how much they hate America and the troops, and keep the FUD in play long enough to push this mess onto someone else, who can be castigated for fucking it up.

Unless the US is prepared to simply install a strong man who is given the green light to "restore order" by whatever draconian means seem expedient, can anyone point to the "good news" on the political front, that suggests "the surge" is providing its intended opportunity for the Iraqis to pull it together?

Petraeus is a military man, not a diplomat or a geopolitical fixer. With the resources he has been given, he can step really hard on a few areas and bring them under control, for a while. He can point to those areas, and give us pleasing numbers.

Does anyone really think that's enough? If so, perhaps you could explain how?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Maliki's "government" is falling apart, which simply negates the entire rational for the "surge", which, as some of you may recall, was intended to create the stability needed for the "government" to start governing.

I could see this one coming from a mile away-- suddenly there is this huge embarrassing silence regarding the actual status of Iraq as a country, and we are expected to sharply narrow our focus to whatever area has seen some drop in American causalities, or listen to fact free chatter about how we're really sticking it to "al Qaeda in Iraq", or accept without question that some city or another has been "secured" and cleared of "insurgents", while being required not to notice the simple math of increased violence in other areas and the ongoing de facto ethnic cleansing, which is well on it's way to creating an Iraq of single sect city-states.

The only metric that has any bearing on our presence is political stability and the capacity of the Iraqi government to govern. Without that, it doesn't matter if we leave now, next month or in ten years, we'll still be leaving a patch of real estate with a shattered infrastructure occupied by a number of warring tribes with various affiliations to surrounding countries.

The "surge" doesn't actually address any of that, and never really had any hope of doing so. All it does it provide a few sound bites about "winning", according to extremely limited criteria, so the jackals can continue to bray about how wrong the left is, and how much they hate America and the troops, and keep the FUD in play long enough to push this mess onto someone else, who can be castigated for fucking it up.

Unless the US is prepared to simply install a strong man who is given the green light to "restore order" by whatever draconian means seem expedient, can anyone point to the "good news" on the political front, that suggests "the surge" is providing its intended opportunity for the Iraqis to pull it together?

Petraeus is a military man, not a diplomat or a geopolitical fixer. With the resources he has been given, he can step really hard on a few areas and bring them under control, for a while. He can point to those areas, and give us pleasing numbers.

Does anyone really think that's enough? If so, perhaps you could explain how?

I think they're having to go back to zero sociologically with the surge -- build some stability then go back and try the elections again.

But I think you're right on the strongman thing -- either purely religious or otherwise -- that's a pretty much standard for the ME.

Did you read dubububbubua's recent "Viet Nam" speech? I think he signaled a willingness to incorporate religion deep into the political system (when he mentioned Japan) and to accept partitioning (when he mentioned Korea). Could be interesting.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

That's not even the correct quote from anyone, not even that scumtanker who runs that wingnut website.

Hmmm.

TFTFY!

I hate to say "I told you so," but....I told you so.

I really can't imagine there are people as deluded as you are. The Democrats ARE invested in blocking Bush's strategy because it's Bush's strategy. I mean, not even the most partisan hack would deny that. They've all but said as much themselves.

And really..."finding the truth" in Iraq? You have to be kidding. The Dems know what the truth is. They're disingenuous and politically motivated, not dumb. They simply are doing what is best for their party, just like they thought they were doing by voting for the war in the first place. Have we not noticed that the Dem position has mirrored public opinion polls exactly? Now, since they're representatives, I don't take issue with that exactly. What I take issue with is them savaging the admin for taking positions that they themselves took not long ago. They're whores.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I have zero confidence in our being in Iraq the multiple years required to achieve victory.

I agree that we SHOULD. But that ain't happening past 2008 IMHO. If so, the sooner we take the hit, the sooner the pain ends.

We may be meeting our recruitment objectives but retention at the O-3 level has been horrendous. I recall 44% attrition in the 2001 class at the O-3 rank. Can't find that reference but that's not sustainable if you want a decent officer corps.

I think we'll be there for a long time, just in reduced numbers. Dem or Republican...we're not pulling out totally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

You see this is the arrogance that inflames the world against the US, the mindless myopic self-obsession and condescension to 'primitive' people.. Ie, anyone else at all.

The clear subtext of the above ludicrous view is that the US cannot pull out because ONLY THE US can fix it, ONLY THE US the US is capable of doing it, ONLY THE US is worthy of the 'responsibility. No-one else counts.

That's not what I said, nor what I meant. The US is the one there. We are the ones who waged war, and it is therefore our responsibility to clean up the mess, which up until now we hadn't been doing very well.

Of course from a logistical standpoint, there aren't a lot of countries that could provide the assistance we are providing. They just don't have the manpower, logistical capability or deep enough pockets for the most part.

Quote:

The solution is quite simple: the US should get out and, more importantly, keep their big schnozz out of anybody else's business period.

And we should let AQI take over and watch potentially hundreds of thousands get slaughtered? 4,000 dead and $300B just wasted?

Quote:

Let other more mature, older, more sophisticated and less violently aggressive nations step in.

Such as?

Quote:

Not France because they are now firmly on the Bush bomb Iran bandwagon now they have an extreme right-wing loon in charge, but the UK (now Toady is history), Germany, possibly Spain could have a free hand to maintain order.

With what militaries? And why would you support the UK going in just because Blair is not there? Seems pretty polarized to me Seg. I don't know about you, but I react to policies and actions, not so much personalities, at least not in matters of war and peace.

Quote:

Dismantle the US embassy - write off the billions it cost, you made more from Iraq anyway - and obliterate the Green Zone. The sensible countries stepping in should start talks and put in some proper investment.

That makes no sense whatsoever, except to satisfy your hatred towards the US in general.

Quote:

Start off by fixing the electricity and infrastructure and make a real commitment to the people.

I suppose I can agree there. More should be done in that regard, though I don't know what a "real commitment" means beyond what you've mentioned.

Quote:

Give them something to live for and defend it against extremists - whether they are US, Zionists or Islamist.

Problem solved. There will be less 'friendly fire' deaths too.....

Yeah, 'cause the problems are The US and Zionists. They are the ones blowing up mosques and markets in downtown Baghdad, setting IEDs and generally wreaking havoc. Good lord.

Quote:

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Don't know whether you're responding to supplying a link or citation or whether about the Frontline report. But that's a given from you. Doesn't surprise me at all. You therefore have lost your credibility again. Why start a thread when all you return with is arrogance and stupidity? Support your claims with information and maybe you'll redeem yourself (unlikely).

I don't need to redeem myself nor do I need your approval. You asked a stupid question. You know full well that there has been significant progress (i.e. "good news") coming from Iraq in recent weeks. You know it. You do. You're just engaging is a pissing contest by asking me for links. I mean, of all the things I posted, that's what you spend your time on...the most indisputable and non-controversial part? Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that Maliki's "government" is falling apart, which simply negates the entire rational for the "surge", which, as some of you may recall, was intended to create the stability needed for the "government" to start governing.

I could see this one coming from a mile away-- suddenly there is this huge embarrassing silence regarding the actual status of Iraq as a country, and we are expected to sharply narrow our focus to whatever area has seen some drop in American causalities, or listen to fact free chatter about how we're really sticking it to "al Qaeda in Iraq", or accept without question that some city or another has been "secured" and cleared of "insurgents", while being required not to notice the simple math of increased violence in other areas and the ongoing de facto ethnic cleansing, which is well on it's way to creating an Iraq of single sect city-states.

The only metric that has any bearing on our presence is political stability and the capacity of the Iraqi government to govern. Without that, it doesn't matter if we leave now, next month or in ten years, we'll still be leaving a patch of real estate with a shattered infrastructure occupied by a number of warring tribes with various affiliations to surrounding countries.

The "surge" doesn't actually address any of that, and never really had any hope of doing so. All it does it provide a few sound bites about "winning", according to extremely limited criteria, so the jackals can continue to bray about how wrong the left is, and how much they hate America and the troops, and keep the FUD in play long enough to push this mess onto someone else, who can be castigated for fucking it up.

Unless the US is prepared to simply install a strong man who is given the green light to "restore order" by whatever draconian means seem expedient, can anyone point to the "good news" on the political front, that suggests "the surge" is providing its intended opportunity for the Iraqis to pull it together?

Petraeus is a military man, not a diplomat or a geopolitical fixer. With the resources he has been given, he can step really hard on a few areas and bring them under control, for a while. He can point to those areas, and give us pleasing numbers.

Does anyone really think that's enough? If so, perhaps you could explain how?

The problem I have with your thinking here is that it's exactly what the Democrats have done. First there was no military progress, too many attacks, soldiers dying, no strategy, etc. Then when the military side started going better, there was no political progress. And, many of them had said just what the Republicans did earlier...that military security must precede and be part of political security. It's a bait and switch, because any good news from Iraq is definitely bad news for them.

Now clearly, political progress does need to be made. I also don't recall your position on this, but to be fair I've not known you to blow around in the wind like the Democratic leadership does. That said, it's too early too condemn Maliki at this point IMO. Regardless of US troop levels, I'd like to see what happens over the next year with him. The pressure has been put on him. Soon there will be added pressure, that of us saying "look, we can't sustain these troop levels even if we wanted to, so get your shit together." In fact, that's already been put in front of him, I'm sure.

Last, there was a compromise this weekend that may have some effect. So there is some progress, but it definitely needs to move more quickly.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

1. Have you even been reading the posts? This is exactly what the thread is addressing....posts like yours.

2. Question: Why will you not focus on any of the media stories showing positive news? Answer: Because you, like your Dem reps, root for failure so you can stick it to the Evil, Lying Republicans. What's good for you politically is bad for Iraq, bad for the troops, and bad for America.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

1. Have you even been reading the posts? This is exactly what the thread is addressing....posts like yours.

2. Question: Why will you not focus on any of the media stories showing positive news? Answer: Because you, like your Dem reps, root for failure so you can stick it to the Evil, Lying Republicans. What's good for you politically is bad for Iraq, bad for the troops, and bad for America.

Well gosh SDW maybe it's because that's the way it is!

You last statement is desperate and stupid.

Getting out of Iraq and harms way ( for no good reason ) is what's good for the troops, Iraq, and America.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Getting out of Iraq and harms way ( for no good reason ) is what's good for the troops, Iraq, and America.

Well no its not. Not going into Iraq would have been good for America.

Now that we're in and made a mess there are no good options and I'm not convinced that pulling out really is the less costly of the two options (pull out, stick it out).

But if we're likely to pull out before the job is done anyway, then sooner is better than later. Drawing down to less than 100K troops mostly located in FOBs is likely the WORST of all options.

Frank, ask your buddy WTF is he going to accomplish engineering wise if we draw down and sulk in super FOBs? Half the (army) troops we have now do nothing but maintain the FOBs anyway (exaggeration but still). I mean WTH are we shipping millions of cases of bottled water to FOBs...isn't that what the the ROWPUs are for?

I don't need to redeem myself nor do I need your approval. You asked a stupid question. You know full well that there has been significant progress (i.e. "good news") coming from Iraq in recent weeks. You know it. You do. You're just engaging is a pissing contest by asking me for links. I mean, of all the things I posted, that's what you spend your time on...the most indisputable and non-controversial part? Amazing.

You've posted nothing but your rants, delusions and rhetoric. Everybody sees this. All the time. You have shown or contributed nothing to your claims of "good news". You know you are the fool on this topic and ironically your the one who started with it with a link that proves that the Surge is not working. You got pissed about it and therefore you rant that it's all the Dem's fault.

I know you have no proof that the Surge is on the right course just much as I do myself.

If you could prove me wrong, all you have to do is point me (US) in the direction of cheering Iraqis, flowers and rainbows and redemption will be served. Don't be retarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001

2. Question: Why will you not focus on any of the media stories showing positive news? Answer: Because you, like your Dem reps, root for failure so you can stick it to the Evil, Lying Republicans. What's good for you politically is bad for Iraq, bad for the troops, and bad for America.

[CENTER]SHOW US THE GOOD NEWS![/CENTER]

There was some good news yesterday, can you find it? I'll give you until high noon...

Well no its not. Not going into Iraq would have been good for America.

Now that we're in and made a mess there are no good options and I'm not convinced that pulling out really is the less costly of the two options (pull out, stick it out).

But if we're likely to pull out before the job is done anyway, then sooner is better than later. Drawing down to less than 100K troops mostly located in FOBs is likely the WORST of all options.

Frank, ask your buddy WTF is he going to accomplish engineering wise if we draw down and sulk in super FOBs? Half the (army) troops we have now do nothing but maintain the FOBs anyway (exaggeration but still). I mean WTH are we shipping millions of cases of bottled water to FOBs...isn't that what the the ROWPUs are for?

I agree with you for the most part except that things are so bad now it really is Vietnamesk. There is no dignified way to pull out. However the longer we stay the worse it's going to be for everyone concerned. And that's not going to change.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Getting out of Iraq and harms way ( for no good reason ) is what's good for the troops, Iraq, and America.

That's the way it is in your deluded world, I realize. You ignore any progress whatsoever and continue to root for failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vinea

Well no its not. Not going into Iraq would have been good for America.

That boat has left the dock.

Quote:

Now that we're in and made a mess there are no good options and I'm not convinced that pulling out really is the less costly of the two options (pull out, stick it out).

Agreed.

Quote:

But if we're likely to pull out before the job is done anyway, then sooner is better than later. Drawing down to less than 100K troops mostly located in FOBs is likely the WORST of all options.

Don't agree there. There will be no definitive time where "the job is done." The longer we stay and stabilize, the more time they have to get themselves up to task. Of course, we can't stay forever.

Quote:

Frank, ask your buddy WTF is he going to accomplish engineering wise if we draw down and sulk in super FOBs? Half the (army) troops we have now do nothing but maintain the FOBs anyway (exaggeration but still). I mean WTH are we shipping millions of cases of bottled water to FOBs...isn't that what the the ROWPUs are for?

Not directed at me, so.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

You've posted nothing but your rants, delusions and rhetoric. Everybody sees this. All the time. You have shown or contributed nothing to your claims of "good news". You know you are the fool on this topic and ironically your the one who started with it with a link that proves that the Surge is not working. You got pissed about it and therefore you rant that it's all the Dem's fault.

I know you have no proof that the Surge is on the right course just much as I do myself.

If you could prove me wrong, all you have to do is point me (US) in the direction of cheering Iraqis, flowers and rainbows and redemption will be served. Don't be retarded.

[CENTER]SHOW US THE GOOD NEWS![/CENTER]

There was some good news yesterday, can you find it? I'll give you until high noon...

You are positively insane. I really think you need to seek help. Are you telling me, honestly, that you are not aware of any evidence that the surge has been effective? Because if so, you're as bad as jimmac. I am, RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, aware of two pieces of good news. Pardon me...three. No wait...four. But you know what, I'm not going to post them. I'm going to let you find them because having this pissing contest is just utterly stupid. You're taking the most non-controversial claim, that being there is good news showing the surge is having at least some positive effects, and you're debating it instead of any number of things we [i]could/i] be debating. As for ranting, I'm not the one posting in 24 point bold faced font, screaming at the computer screen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by segovius

Two significant pieces of good news actually.

Don't think he'll find them though...not as long as he is looking for proof that Iran needs to be nuked...

Whatever. You're just playing games. As for Iran, I see you insist on portraying anyone who disagrees with your insane anti-American/anti-Irsraeli view as a war monger. I don't want them "nuked" and I would prefer strongly not to see an attack. I've said it over and over, but you don't listen. to you, anyone who thinks that it Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, that it should obey UN resolutions instead of denouncing them within minutes of passage and that President Tom is dangerous....well that person just wants to nuke the world. It's fucking hyoperbolic strawman nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

I agree with you for the most part except that things are so bad now it really is Vietnamesk. There is no dignified way to pull out. However the longer we stay the worse it's going to be for everyone concerned. And that's not going to change.

At least your presenting an opinion now instead of pretending it's a fact. But I disagree with your opinion anyway, because your central premise is wrong to begin with. The end goal is not to pull out, it's a result of being done with the mission to a satisfactory degree. Pulling out is the result, not the goal. And I do think we can get out of there in many different ways, some being better than others.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

No. I'm not going to share what you already damn well know in the interest of debating something doesn't even need to be debated. I mean really...I post a topic that pretty much rips the Dems for their response to what the report will say, and you guys go batshit about the part that is a given. Either that, or you really don't know of any good news. That might be even worse.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

No. I'm not going to share what you already damn well know in the interest of debating something doesn't even need to be debated. I mean really...I post a topic that pretty much rips the Dems for their response to what the report will say, and you guys go batshit about the part that is a given. Either that, or you really don't know of any good news. That might be even worse.

No. I'm not going to share what you already damn well know in the interest of debating something doesn't even need to be debated. I mean really...I post a topic that pretty much rips the Dems for their response to what the report will say, and you guys go batshit about the part that is a given. Either that, or you really don't know of any good news. That might be even worse.

Well, obviously we know - we're just not sure you do and, to be quite frank, this behaviour is not alleviating that impression in the least...

Now, you have been asked a reasonable question in an extraordinarily patient and curteous manner...are you going to show the respect of answering it?

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has ordered a six-month suspension of activities by his Mahdi Army militia in order to reorganize the force, and it will no longer attack U.S. and coalition troops, aides said Wednesday.

The aide, Sheik Hazim al-Araji, said on Iraqi state television that the goal was to "rehabilitate" the organization, which has reportedly broken into factions, some of which the U.S. maintains are trained and supplied by Iran.

"We declare the freezing of the Mahdi Army without exception in order to rehabilitate it in a way that will safeguard its ideological image within a maximum period of six months starting from the day this statement is issued," al-Araji said, reading from a statement by al-Sadr.

In Najaf, al-Sadr's spokesman said the order also means the Mahdi Army will no longer launch attacks against U.S. and other coalition forces.

"It also includes suspending the taking up of arms against occupiers as well as others," Ahmed al-Shaibani told reporters.

Asked if Mahdi militiamen would defend themselves against provocations, he replied: "We will deal with it when it happens."

To me this is the most relevant good news from Iraq in years. It gives the U.S. and other coalition forces more breathing room to carry out the important stages of the Surge operation; secure and hold. If this suspension holds for six months I can't see how it will not affect the U.S. operations positively in time. I do not understand Muqtada al-Sadr's motivations for this beyond re-grouping, but we shall see.

To me this is the most relevant good news from Iraq in years. It gives the U.S. and other coalition forces more breathing room to carry out the important stages of the Surge operation; secure and hold. If this suspension holds for six months I can't see how it will not affect the U.S. operations positively in time. I do not understand Muqtada al-Sadr's motivations for this beyond re-grouping, but we shall see.

Well, I held up to my promise...

His organization was apparently compromised and splintering into factions. It seems he is starting from square one again with clean slate.

What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad

His organization was apparently compromised and splintering into factions. It seems he is starting from square one again with clean slate.

Much like Mr. Malarkey, er Maliki's situation itself. That's the bad news...the power vacuum that's occurring within and without the Iraqi government. Actually the Problem Isnt Mr. Maliki.

Quote:

Blaming the prime minister of Iraq, rather than the president of the United States, for the spectacular failure of American policy, is cynical politics, pure and simple. It is neither fair nor helpful in figuring out how to end Americas biggest foreign policy fiasco since Vietnam.